IMPORTANT: JREF Forums is now the International Skeptics Forum. If you are a past member of the JREF Forums you must agree to the new terms and conditions to post, send PMs, or continue to use the forum as a member. You can view them here, or you will be presented with them when you try to make a post or PM or similar.

Your private information was removed in transferring to the new forum. If you'd like to import it please see the instructions in this thread to approve transfer.
If you are having problems accessing the Forum you can contact Darat at isforum@internationalskeptics.com, please include your username and forum email address in any email.
NOTE:** TAPATALK access is currently disabled **. This is just while we work out how to ensure people have to agree to the T&Cs before posting here via Tapatalk

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Won't the subject of this judgement want to sue, since this judgement will pretty much ruin their life?

Huh? That's a bit of an over-reaction, don't ya think?

NY denies permits all the time. I'm pretty confident that no one has had their life ruined by this. Nor do their character references get sued for vouching for someone. It would be no different for doctors.

You're taking this liability thing too far. The doctor would not be giving up specific information that even says "why".

Fine, how about this:It would be a choice of the applicant to either:
- Have your doctor sign form 1234A
*or*
- Be interviewed by a State appointed doctor/psychologist for approval

__________________--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

NY denies permits all the time. I'm pretty confident that no one has had their life ruined by this. Nor do their character references get sued for vouching for someone. It would be no different for doctors.

You're taking this liability thing too far. The doctor would not be giving up specific information that even says "why".

Fine, how about this:It would be a choice of the applicant to either:
- Have your doctor sign form 1234A
*or*
- Be interviewed by a State appointed doctor/psychologist for approval

I believe being declared mentally unfit for anything will ruin my life. Period.

You say it will be kept confident, but it won't.

How can the doctor not say why? That makes no sense. He just thinks I shouldn't have a gun? Do I have a say?

What if I am just having a bad day when he makes his evaluation? What if something is worrying me that day, or bothering me?

Have you ever had a bad day at the office? Have friends ever asked you what was wrong with you at one time or another?

__________________What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

I believe being declared mentally unfit for anything will ruin my life. Period.

You say it will be kept confident, but it won't.

How can the doctor not say why? That makes no sense. He just thinks I shouldn't have a gun? Do I have a say?

What if I am just having a bad day when he makes his evaluation? What if something is worrying me that day, or bothering me?

Have you ever had a bad day at the office? Have friends ever asked you what was wrong with you at one time or another?

You're nitpicking an issue to death and you haven't so much as offered a fart as another option.

So, you're life is ruined because your doctor might have told the permit officer that you may (or may not) have a mental condition.

Are you not to be pro-active? You know, like actually talk to your doctor? I mean, if you're seeing your doctor/shrink a couple times a month and are thinking suicide every holiday...I'm thinking you have an idea you might be crazy before you file for your license...

__________________--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

It would be a choice of the applicant to either:
- Have your doctor sign form 1234A
*or*
- Be interviewed by a State appointed doctor/psychologist for approval

What, specifically, is this going to change?

I say specifically because I want you to think this through. Funding for mental health has been cut to disastrous levels. It's just criminal. People don't get help until it is far too late. Now, we are going to burden that system even further? Is this really the best use of our resources? Are we going to fund this with new money, or expect it to limp along, necessarily reducing resources that are already lacking?

There are over 100M households with guns in the US. 100,000,000.

How many state appointed doctors are there that are competent to make this sort of evaluation?

Etc.

Be specific, please.

To put this in perspective, most states are overwhelmed just with CCW applications. That's a tiny minority of the # of people looking to buy or own handguns. You are proposing creating a whole new industry, when doctors and psychologists are already vastly overworked. It varies by region, but in general the doctor's office is a well oiled machine these days - I forget the number but there are something like 6 or more staff members per doctor just to regulate the patient flow - to minimize the amount of time the doctor has to spend with each patient. This is not to maximize profits, but because there just isn't enough time to address the need. I've had trouble finding doctors taking new patients.

Is this really the best use of our limited resources?

In contrast, if we were to fill every residential pool in the US with concrete, a much easier undertaking, we'd actually do something serious about deaths in children.

It's easy to come up with rules and laws, but we have to pay for them and implement them somehow. I suggest you have no evidence whatsoever that this proposal would make a dent in gun crime (you haven't posted it, at least). You have no evidence that it would stop even 1 incident from happening.

ETA: here is a WSJ article on the shortage of doctors in the US. 9 states have fewer than 10 doctors per 1,000 people. There are not enough resident positions to train the doctors that we will need in the future.

__________________May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. - John Muir

Yes and No. Everything you say is true, but omits probably the most significant requirement to get a license in the UK: A good reason, that is not self-defence.

You do not need a reason to get a shotgun, only a Sec 1 firearm.

Quote:

The requirement of a reason, combined with general culture, means that very few people have a firearms certificate.

I think this is quite a lot of people

"According to the most recent figures for England and Wales, there are 138,728 people certificated to hold firearms and they own 435,383 weapons. There are 574,946 shotgun certificates which cover 1.4 million shotguns.

Statistics for Scotland show that 70,839 firearms were held by 26,072 certificate holders at the end of last year. Some 50,000 people in Scotland are certificated to hold shotguns - and 137,768 weapons are covered by that scheme."

Quote:

In addition, there are some weapons for which you simply cannot get a license for in the UK (in particular, handguns), which are commonplace in the U.S.

Yes, even though you do not need a reason for a shotgun, its purpose is pretty clear for vermin and game.

Quote:

I think that the doctors note would be quite hard to get, unless the law included a lot of language to shield the doctor from liability if the applicant kills or injures someone. I can well imagine a general practitioner, with no particular expertise in mental health, refusing to provide a note without referring the applicant to a psychiatrist.

Requiring secure keeping is a good idea - rather surprising it isn't required already.

I think the onus is more on referees than the persons GP to speak to overall suitability.

Some counties in NY it is basically impossible to get the CCP. Erie and Niagara come to mind. Here in Chautauqua county it's just about a six month wait because of backlog.

They will follow up on you though. I once received a visit from a Chautauqua County deputy inquiring if I objected to the granting a pistol permit to a man who lived on the same street I did at the time.

__________________Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

I say specifically because I want you to think this through. Funding for mental health has been cut to disastrous levels. It's just criminal. People don't get help until it is far too late. Now, we are going to burden that system even further? Is this really the best use of our resources? Are we going to fund this with new money, or expect it to limp along, necessarily reducing resources that are already lacking?

There are over 100M households with guns in the US. 100,000,000.

How many state appointed doctors are there that are competent to make this sort of evaluation?

Etc.

Be specific, please.

To put this in perspective, most states are overwhelmed just with CCW applications. That's a tiny minority of the # of people looking to buy or own handguns. You are proposing creating a whole new industry, when doctors and psychologists are already vastly overworked. It varies by region, but in general the doctor's office is a well oiled machine these days - I forget the number but there are something like 6 or more staff members per doctor just to regulate the patient flow - to minimize the amount of time the doctor has to spend with each patient. This is not to maximize profits, but because there just isn't enough time to address the need. I've had trouble finding doctors taking new patients.

Is this really the best use of our limited resources?

In contrast, if we were to fill every residential pool in the US with concrete, a much easier undertaking, we'd actually do something serious about deaths in children.

It's easy to come up with rules and laws, but we have to pay for them and implement them somehow. I suggest you have no evidence whatsoever that this proposal would make a dent in gun crime (you haven't posted it, at least). You have no evidence that it would stop even 1 incident from happening.

No...I haven't thought this through to conclusion. It was an idea proposed as part of getting a Firearm License. I included it as an attempt to answer the question "how do we keep guns out of the hands of the mentally-ill".

If it's not feasible, then that's that, then it shouldn't be a requirement. But is there a way to make it feasible?

__________________--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

No...I haven't thought this through to conclusion. It was an idea proposed as part of getting a Firearm License. I included it as an attempt to answer the question "how do we keep guns out of the hands of the mentally-ill".

If it's not feasible, then that's that, then it shouldn't be a requirement. But is there a way to make it feasible?

Okay. To be fair I don't think your OP made your goal clear, at least to me. You used a rhetorical device like "wrong people" - I thought you were more talking criminals and the suicidal.

I don't buy that anyone can judge somebody's fitness for gun ownership (unless they are already so incapacitated that they couldn't pass a safety class anyway).

Still, in the vein of this thread, why not something far simpler? You have to apply for a license in person. If the sheriff thinks you are a barking lunatic, he can postpone your license for a month (or three, I don't want to quibble about the time frame other than it should be 'reasonable'), at which time the court has to either investigate you and prove incompetence, or you get the license.

That's hugely different from your perspective. You seem okay with a number of random, untrained people being able to unilaterally, without reason or repercussions, limiting a right given to us in the Constitution. I find that scary and abhorrent. There should be a cost associated with such blithe removal of rights, IMO. If you want to limit my ownership, and I have passed a background check, and I can walk into a sheriff's office and not set off a red flag (can I follow a conversation, etc), I think that the state should face the costs of trying to restrict me.

I'm not a fan of my proposal, it just strikes me as at least equally effective as yours at a far lower cost. It's more or less how CCW works in shall issue states. If the state can't prove there is a reason to not issue it, they must issue it.

Why not a fan? Sheriffs in some counties are known to throw road blocks. In CO the legal time limit is 90 days from application to approval. Guess how long it takes in some counties. Yes, exactly 90 days.

100,000,000 households with guns. We have a tiny mental health issue in relation to the same (not many spree shootings compared to that number). Why not look at improving mental health services, which have been decimated in the last few decades, instead? I submit, without proof, that the net gain would be far better, and our money would be spent on helping people, instead of hindering them.

ETA: I had a CCW in CO. The laws are easy to google. But I had to get training, I had to pass a background check, and I had to apply in person. There are waivers for training if you are in law enforcement, the military, or can prove you are a competitive shooter. I can't see anything in all the rest of your proposals that would do anything more than those rules already accomplish. I do see a lot of things that in practice will restrict a large number of people that pose no threat whatsoever.

__________________May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. - John Muir

You're nitpicking an issue to death and you haven't so much as offered a fart as another option.

So, you're life is ruined because your doctor might have told the permit officer that you may (or may not) have a mental condition.

Are you not to be pro-active? You know, like actually talk to your doctor? I mean, if you're seeing your doctor/shrink a couple times a month and are thinking suicide every holiday...I'm thinking you have an idea you might be crazy before you file for your license...

I have an annual physical with my GP.

I last had a psych eval when I joined the Army, then another informal one when they decided whether or not to give me ammo, and again when they decided whether or not to give me live hand grenades.

Since the Army let me in and and let me have ammo and grenades, I assume I was not considered nuts at those times.

I have posted my State's firearms laws in this thread in response to you, and said they are fine with me at present and don't need any changes.

__________________What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

So, you're life is ruined because your doctor might have told the permit officer that you may (or may not) have a mental condition.

Normally, your interactions with your doctor are protected by doctor/patient confidentiality and by HIPAA. You're advocating that in order to exercise a Constitutional right, people be denied this protection. Having a doctor tell someone that you're mentally unstable can be really damaging, even if (especially if) you're not.

Ya, I certainly can't think of any reason why a sheriff thinking I'm unstable enough to shoot everyone in a mall of school could have a negative impact on my life.

/sarcasm

__________________May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. - John Muir

Okay. To be fair I don't think your OP made your goal clear, at least to me. You used a rhetorical device like "wrong people" - I thought you were more talking criminals and the suicidal.

Fair enough. I thought I was clear, but it happens.

But, yes, criminals/suicidal/mentally-ill/etc.

Quote:

I don't buy that anyone can judge somebody's fitness for gun ownership (unless they are already so incapacitated that they couldn't pass a safety class anyway).

And I agree. But, like I said, the purpose of the OP was only to suggest the requirement. If something doesn't work, how about another practical idea?

Quote:

Still, in the vein of this thread, why not something far simpler? You have to apply for a license in person. If the sheriff thinks you are a barking lunatic, he can postpone your license for a month (or three, I don't want to quibble about the time frame other than it should be 'reasonable'), at which time the court has to either investigate you and prove incompetence, or you get the license.

I like this. Maybe the safety course instructor(s) could also flag strange behavior?

Quote:

That's hugely different from your perspective. You seem okay with a number of random, untrained people being able to unilaterally, without reason or repercussions, limiting a right given to us in the Constitution. I find that scary and abhorrent. There should be a cost associated with such blithe removal of rights, IMO. If you want to limit my ownership, and I have passed a background check, and I can walk into a sheriff's office and not set off a red flag (can I follow a conversation, etc), I think that the state should face the costs of trying to restrict me.

Absolutely not. Maybe I should have made this a bit more clear as well. The States should issue license unless they can prove otherwise. By no means should the reverse be true. I'm 100% behind you on this.

Quote:

I'm not a fan of my proposal, it just strikes me as at least equally effective as yours at a far lower cost. It's more or less how CCW works in shall issue states. If the state can't prove there is a reason to not issue it, they must issue it.

Why not a fan? Sheriffs in some counties are known to throw road blocks. In CO the legal time limit is 90 days from application to approval. Guess how long it takes in some counties. Yes, exactly 90 days.

Yeah, NY does it, too. Only they get 6 months. The kicker is that, in some counties, it takes double that time span. I don't really know how they get away with it.

We could impose time limits on the OP proposal as well. Let's say 60 days?

Quote:

100,000,000 households with guns. We have a tiny mental health issue in relation to the same (not many spree shootings compared to that number). Why not look at improving mental health services, which have been decimated in the last few decades, instead? I submit, without proof, that the net gain would be far better, and our money would be spent on helping people, instead of hindering them.

100% agreed, again.

OK, so let's remove the "Doctor's Note" requirement altogether. We could rely on the Sheriff, safety course instructors, and character references to at least help identify any potentially strange behavior. Yes?

__________________--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

Normally, your interactions with your doctor are protected by doctor/patient confidentiality and by HIPAA. You're advocating that in order to exercise a Constitutional right, people be denied this protection. Having a doctor tell someone that you're mentally unstable can be really damaging, even if (especially if) you're not.

Yes, I know that.

But, again, the doctor does not reveal any specific reason why he feels you're not qualified. For all the Sheriff would know, it was that you're blind and missing both hands, not clinically depressed and threatening suicide every other week.

Doesn't matter...we're nixing the requirement from the OP.

__________________--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

How about instead of sweeping new legislation that (so far as I can figure it) negatively impacts over 100,000,000 lawful and sane owners with no evidence of having any effect, we spend our time and money on any of the following:

* Mandatory refresher training and testing for teachers.
* annual psych eval of students, with services provided to those found in need and lacking insurance.
* low cost or free government sponsored gun safety classes.
* investments in shooting clubs in schools (we used to have them, it's not a crazy idea)

I think all of those would have a beneficial impact on the lives of our children (I recognize the OP was not strictly about children) and on adults.

Seriously, think about it. Instead of a sheriff randomly calling your neighbor to see if you think I'm mentally ill or not, what about a twice monthly free training session to anyone that shows up? Wouldn't that lead to fewer deaths in the long term (I dunno, but I suspect it would), real and better interaction between the sheriff and the community, and more time spent tracking criminals rather than ordinary citizens. I admit it's a personal bias, but I prefer spending money on things that improve people, not try to remove things from people, in general.

Instead of using dubious mental screening techniques that by and large will be rubber stamping, we spend money helping people at a time in their life when they are most likely to actually benefit from it - in childhood. Instead of just saying, if you do find somebody with a problem "sorry, no (legal) guns for you", you actually try to help the person and keep them from becoming a spree killer, suicide statistic, or just malfunctioning person.

Instead of spending time and money verifying if my "friends" are us citizens and so on, we spend time and money on improving our teachers, or giving them resources if they already are good?

IOW, I view all of the proposals as aimed at restriction. Why not spend our time and money on improving things. If you say "no" to a license, you've just made it a bit harder for them to arm themselves. If you improve somebody's life, well.....

__________________May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. - John Muir

Be subject to a criminal background check at both State and Federal levels.

Fingerprints and photographs which are to be stored and accessible by both State and Federal authorities.

Be subject to a personal interview by the County Sheriff’s office (or equivalent).

Provide a minimum of four (4) character references that are of no direct relation to the applicant. References must:

Reside within the county of applicant.

Must be citizens of the USA

Must be a minimum age of 25

Must be an acquaintance of the applicant for a minimum of three (3) years. (These references will be interviewed by phone or in person by the County Sheriff’s office.)

Applicant must attend a “Safe Handling, Operation, and Security of Firearms” class and receive a passing grade on the subsequent paper exam. Exam and certificate signed by an authorized instructor will be filed and permanently kept with the permit application. Cost for this class is not to exceed $50 USD.

Applicant must also provide proof of the ability to secure any and all firearms safely in a locking container. This could be a safe, secure room, closet, or off-site location (such as a locker at a firing range).

This initial license application fee is not to exceed $125 USD.

Terms of license are "Shall-Issue" and application process is not to exceed 60 days without due cause.

2. License Holder

Once license is obtained, all firearm purchases must be recorded to the license holder with the following information:

Firearm Type

Caliber

Serial Number

All sales/trades/transfers of firearms must be done through a FFL dealer. Private sales of any firearm are prohibited.

3. License Renewal.

License renewals are required every five (5) years at a cost not to exceed $35 USD.

License holder must show proof of attendance to a “Safe Handling, Operation, and Security of Firearms” refresher course within the last ninety (90) days. (This is a short 3 hour class designed specifically for reiteration/refresher. No written exam is done with this version of the course.) There is no cost for this course.

4. Age Requirements:

You may apply for and obtain a Firearm License at age 18.

However, an individual is prohibited from buying/owning a handgun until the individual reaches age 21.

*: All fees can be waived if the applicant can show financial hardship.

__________________--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

Absolutely not. Maybe I should have made this a bit more clear as well. The States should issue license unless they can prove otherwise. By no means should the reverse be true. I'm 100% behind you on this.

Okay, your OP and subsequent replies say something different. A doctor (which I acknowledge you've dropped below) can deny somebody without giving any reason whatsoever. I see nothing about going in front of a court - as I understand it if the sheriff wants to deny a CCW in CO he has to make the case in front of a judge.

Quote:

OK, so let's remove the "Doctor's Note" requirement altogether. We could rely on the Sheriff, safety course instructors, and character references to at least help identify any potentially strange behavior. Yes?

I'm not opposed to the concept of keeping guns out of the hands dangerous people. I am hugely opposed to having untrained people making judgements about "potentially strange behavior'. Most people view people with Asperger's as 'strange' (I swear this is not a reference to the last shooting).

It's a meme at this point - the neighbors of a serial killer interviewed on TV "he seemed so normal, just a bit quiet". Why do you think testimonials will filter anyone out? Okay "anyone" - I'm sure over time (a decade) one or two would be stopped, but how many tens of thousands would you stop that are not a threat?

A real story - an uncle was going through a divorce. I was told well after the fact that he took to carrying a revolver around, and talking about shooting either himself or estranged wife.

A few points from that - he would have passed any mental health test prior to the divorce, and probably after. Somebody that knew better didn't report him after he told this to her (so much for friends being impartial).

I'm sorry, I just don't think a sheriff or an instructor is competent as judging mental health.

Sadly, we will never stop all the shooters. Making mental health services available in the US would go a lot longer (in my uneducated opinion) at improving lives and stopping this sort of thing. It also is not a panacea, but I think it would help a lot more than putting roadblocks in the form of untrained people making determinations about mental health.

ETA: just saw your revision about shall issue. I still think a doctor is the only one remotely capable of accessing mental health (short of the talking to people that aren't there mental illness). Is that the sort of thing you mean by "potentially strange behavior"?

__________________May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. - John Muir

Seriously, think about it. Instead of a sheriff randomly calling your neighbor to see if you think I'm mentally ill or not, what about a twice monthly free training session to anyone that shows up? Wouldn't that lead to fewer deaths in the long term (I dunno, but I suspect it would)

Not sure how much more that would do. IIRC, there were 554 accidental firearm deaths in 2010 (as compared to nearly 700 for swimming pools).

The overall goal, I would imagine, is to prevent criminals and mentally-ill from obtaining guns to commit these acts. Yes, they're rare, but obviously not rare enough.

But it doesn't always help. You have the Sandy Hook shooter who steals his mom's legal guns, or you have this woman from upstate NY who acts as a straw buyer for a convicted murderer to obtain guns to kill firefighters.

What's next? An all out ban is just plain ridiculous, but something has to be done.

So make it a relative minor chore to even get a license. Is it right? Probably not. But it's better than sitting on our hands I suppose.

I suggested a while back (in another thread) to make even simple possession of an illegal gun some ridiculous jail time. That goes for straw-buyers, too. But this is going to cost money, too.

No matter what direction this goes, it's going to cost money.

__________________--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

Let's talk about the lock up proof. DC has the most police per capita, at 6.5 per 1000. At rank 20, we have 3.5 per 1000. The average is around 2.5 (based on random googling, I assume the #s are roughly correct). Who is going to 100,000,000 homes and doing this inspection? The law? Building inspectors? Random for-hire services?

There is a huge amount of infrastructure being proposed here. The end result will be the same - people that don't believe in locking up there guns won't do it. Is this close to the best use of our LEO's time and our country's money?

__________________May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. - John Muir

ETA: just saw your revision about shall issue. I still think a doctor is the only one remotely capable of accessing mental health (short of the talking to people that aren't there mental illness). Is that the sort of thing you mean by "potentially strange behavior"?

How would you feel about simply suggesting "a more intensive interview" for those that "act strangely" during the normal process? Just to confirm it's not just someone being overly cautious (or intentionally trying to cause a problem for the applicant)?

I get your point that only a doctor can diagnose...but this is a loophole I'm trying to close with the least bit of privacy/rights invasion.

__________________--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

Not sure how much more that would do. IIRC, there were 554 accidental firearm deaths in 2010 (as compared to nearly 700 for swimming pools).

You are right. I forgot how low accidents had gotten. There has been a strong push for education, and accidental deaths have really fallen.

This reflects my bias, and the reason for my opposition to your licensing idea. I think education and help will go a lot further than just trying to screen people.

I don't think we have a handle on causes yet. If 50% of gun violence was due to gangs (a completely made up number), it would make sense to focus our efforts on gangs. If it is mostly domestic abuse, then again, where to spend the money is clear.

But just throwing up a bunch of road blocks based on untrained people making judgements about mental heath and/or other suitability criteria just doesn't seem like an effective way to go.

Actually, we know a heck of a lot of gun deaths is just due to suicide, why not start there? I know nothing about the topic personally, but based on NPR radio programs, the mental health community is crying out for investment, not for restriction of guns. It seems reasonable to me.

__________________May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. - John Muir

Let's talk about the lock up proof. DC has the most police per capita, at 6.5 per 1000. At rank 20, we have 3.5 per 1000. The average is around 2.5 (based on random googling, I assume the #s are roughly correct). Who is going to 100,000,000 homes and doing this inspection? The law? Building inspectors? Random for-hire services?

There is a huge amount of infrastructure being proposed here. The end result will be the same - people that don't believe in locking up there guns won't do it. Is this close to the best use of our LEO's time and our country's money?

Seems to me that a GP would refuse to make any statement in regards to a patience mental health on the grounds that he is not a licensed and trained Psychiatrist.

Plus, what happens if the GP happens to be virulently anti/pro guns and either signs off on everyone or no one?

I think this puts too much power in the hands of Doctors. (and neither they,nor their insurance company would be too keen on this)

ETA: my brother is a hunter and a few years back one of his buddies came back from the hunting camp to discover his home had been burglarized and his entire gun safe ripped from the wall and stolen!! The good thing? His weapons were all stored at the hunting camp for the season so he lost nothing! But , if he hadn't moved them , all of his guns would be out there and followed proper safety protocols iMO.

How would you feel about simply suggesting "a more intensive interview" for those that "act strangely" during the normal process? Just to confirm it's not just someone being overly cautious (or intentionally trying to cause a problem for the applicant)?

I get your point that only a doctor can diagnose...but this is a loophole I'm trying to close with the least bit of privacy/rights invasion.

I just don't like it, as detailed above. There is room for a discussion about restricting ownership based on diagnosis - if you have untreated schizophrenia, probably you should not own a gun. But interviews and guesses and hunches? Again, if you are talking about complete disconnect with reality, perhaps, but I honestly doubt whether this is a real problem in practice.

What's the bar? Depression? Manic depresive? borderline personality disorder? Again, I am not an expert, I only listen to NPR, but I don't think the mental health professionals claim that they can identify killers. If they can't, who can?

I think you have a beautiful idea that is impossible in reality. We don't know how to identify future criminal or psychopathic behavior. We do have some ideas on how to treat people that do have problems. Why not focus on what we do know, and can measurably prove makes a difference? We shudder in horror about 20 innocent kids being shot, but nonchalantly accept over 30K suicides a year. One of the doctor's NPR interviewed was thanking the interviewer profusely for talking about mental health instead of guns.

Let's focus on changing what we can change.

__________________May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. - John Muir

Seems to me that a GP would refuse to make any statement in regards to a patience mental health on the grounds that he is not a licensed and trained Psychiatrist.

Plus, what happens if the GP happens to be virulently anti/pro guns and either signs off on everyone or no one?

I remember in the 60's a California physician's fee for treating skateboard injuries (know as "Sidewalk Surfing" back then" was 1/2 the skateboard, front or back, he didn't care

Quote:

I think this puts too much power in the hands of Doctors. (and neither they,nor their insurance company would be too keen on this)

ETA: my brother is a hunter and a few years back one of his buddies came back from the hunting camp to discover his home had been burglarized and his entire gun safe ripped from the wall and stolen!! The good thing? His weapons were all stored at the hunting camp for the season so he lost nothing! But , if he hadn't moved them , all of his guns would be out there and followed proper safety protocols iMO.

According to some here, he should be charged and jailed if any were used in a crime. (if they had been stolen, in fact)

ETA: It seems the baseline premise of every proposal is that nuts and criminal types are willing to follow the laws...

__________________"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriadhttp://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

Or we could simply make it a law without proof...but if something happens where it can be shown you did not have your firearms secure, then your risking losing your license?

I dunno? Any ideas?

I'm all for laws that punish transgressors. But we are hypothesizing somebody that can break into my home (guns are already locked up from that perspective) but then cannot break into a $200 safe?

I bet you dollars to donuts I can break into or just take a cheap safe more easily than I can a wooden front door.

Ain't no one but homeowners that can own a serious, heavy, more or less secure safe. Are we restricting ownership to homeowners?

eta: $200 is generous. Safes sold as gun safes go down to $79 or so. go visit a Harbor Frieght or Walmart and consider how well these safes will resist a crowbar

eta2: googling reveals some interesting threads by LEOs. The upshot: it's extremely rare to have loss (of any kind) in a house with an alarm. The 1000lb+ safes that are bolted to the floor are only broke into rarely, though they are in 'owner out of town' situations. Fire safes and the luggable kind are stolen or just popped open all the time. Even heavy safes are stolen - thieves either bring a dolly, or just slide the safe on metal pipes laid on the floor.

__________________May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. - John Muir

My experience is that many "below poverty line" folk are on some sort of medical assistance and do have a regular doctor.

I get most of my care through either MadiganArmy Medical Center or American Lake Veteran's Hospital because I am medically retired for service-connected disability. My wife and I go to Madigan for emergencies, she goes to a a civilian provider and I go to American Lake for routine and on-going care. She would have a record with her civilian provider. My records at both Madigan and American Lake and her emergencies at Madigan are on nationally-accessible computer files. Both are teaching hospitals, and the doctors at Madigan are subject to re-deployment at the discretion of their particular service. Thus, only my wife would be likely to have access to a doctor who has specificly observed her over any length of time.

I do not know much about the sort of care available to low-income people, but I would not be surprised if most of them were in programs centered on teachng hospitals as well.

On that basis alone, the medical records check would be easier for my wife than for me to clear. But trust me, you do not want her carrying concealed.

__________________No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

__________________Vote Bunk and vote often.
If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.
"Yes, well, I'm polymerized tree sap and you're an inorganic adhesive, so whatever verbal projectile you launch in my direction is reflected off of me, returns on its original trajectory and adheres to you." - Sheldon - TBBT

and a big time heavy safe large enough to hold rifles probably costs several grand. a Good gunsafe can be had for a few hundred-$1000 depending on the toughness of it.

That being said, two determined criminals can easily pry a gunsafe from the wall and cart it to an awaiting truck. Then go home and take their sweet time breaking into it.

As I mentioned in another thread, California has a basic storage requirement. Either you sign a form affirming that you own a qualifying safe, or you buy a trigger lock, as part of your paperwork at purchase time. (Mind you, I've never seen them check. You just get in trouble later if it's proven that you lied. ) This is about preventing accidents, mind you, not utterly thwarting burglaries. That is impossible -- the most any safe can hope to do is slow them down long enough for burglary to become unprofitable. Kinda like utterly stopping all spree killings... but I digress.

The California requirement boils down to a safe with a UL "RSC" rating (Residential Security Container). This is equivalent to providing five minutes of resistance against your average burglar with basic tools (crowbar, sledgehammer, that kind of thing). The RSC rating is probably a reasonable compromise if we're looking to establish a working, useful, but not unattainable standard.

$1000 is about the bare minimum for an RSC sized to cram in a dozen rifles.

For more serious protection, about $2000-3000 will get you a B-rate, still defeatable in ten minutes or so but not easy prey to guys with Sawzalls. Mine is in this category and weighs the better part of a ton.

Next step up is a C-rate or a TL-15 rating (that's "fifteen minutes"), around $5000. And so on.

A truly high-end safe, say a TRTL-60x6, that's "tool and torch resistant, all six sides, to sixty minutes" big enough to handle long rifles, will probably run you on the order of a hundred grand, and you'll want to build your house around it. I've never seen one outside of a museum.

Alright, so I'll make the safe/security requirement similar to how it is in CA.

I've already nixed the doctor requirement. Are there any other rules that are objectionable?

It was brought up earlier about the references. Four is reasonable. However, if you honestly cannot find 4 non-relation individuals within your county to vouch for your character, then we can add what I had to do and require extra references if they live outside the county (I had to provide 6 because only 2 of my references resided within the county in which I was applying).

Further, it's not as easy as "getting your criminal buddies and/or gun-nut buddies" to vouch for you. In NY, the references must provide a written letter and the Sheriff calls each of them to conduct a verbal interview as well. They want to know what qualifies you to vouch for the applicant. I chose folks who are upstanding people. Both of my Fire Chiefs, two police officers, a nurse, and my longtime Scoutmaster.

Bottom line is that NY, as a "may-issue" state, is very strict with handing out a permit, but 99% of applicants still go through without problems.

__________________--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

Since New York is so similar in requirements for gun licences and holders to the UK, yet it has massacres and a far higher death rate than the UK from guns (2.64 per 100,000 compared to 0.07), that suggests the issue is the sheer availability of guns. So priority should be to get the guns off the criminals.

Since New York is so similar in requirements for gun licences and holders to the UK, yet it has massacres and a far higher death rate than the UK from guns (2.64 per 100,000 compared to 0.07), that suggests the issue is the sheer availability of guns. So priority should be to get the guns off the criminals.

I agree. There may be additional factors which affect rates of firearms deaths and differ between the US and the UK - culture, poverty, population density and demographics, the number of legally owned firearms and probably many more.

Having looked at the statistics for NYC and London (2009-2010 end year figures), it seems odd that NYC has such a high murder rate, when London has more robberies and possibly more violent assaults (there are some classification differences there). The two cities are of comparable size. <headscratch>

I agree. There may be additional factors which affect rates of firearms deaths and differ between the US and the UK - culture, poverty, population density and demographics, the number of legally owned firearms and probably many more.

Having looked at the statistics for NYC and London (2009-2010 end year figures), it seems odd that NYC has such a high murder rate, when London has more robberies and possibly more violent assaults (there are some classification differences there). The two cities are of comparable size. <headscratch>

The obvious reason is weapon used. Guns are far more common in NYC than London and gun shot wounds have a lower survivability rate than the British preferred weapon of a knife. If Londoners were armed like New Yorkers are with guns, we would possibly have the higher homicide rate.

Having looked at the statistics for NYC and London (2009-2010 end year figures), it seems odd that NYC has such a high murder rate, when London has more robberies and possibly more violent assaults (there are some classification differences there). The two cities are of comparable size. <headscratch>

NYC gun laws are even stricter than the rest of the State...all guns are essentially banned in the NYC Burroughs unless you have a pretty damn good reason for having one. Jumping through hoops there is more like swimming the Hudson in December with your feet tied together and your hair on fire.

The obvious reason is weapon used. Guns are far more common in NYC than London and gun shot wounds have a lower survivability rate than the British preferred weapon of a knife. If Londoners were armed like New Yorkers are with guns, we would possibly have the higher homicide rate.

Even so, this article shows violent crime in the UK going up while the US is going down...

__________________--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

Why not? NY allows a faxed statement from an ophthalmologist verifying the quality of your eyesight to drive a car.

All they're doing though is confirming if you have a certain level of measurable vision performance. They're not certifying that you're competent to drive a car. Big difference. Particularly in lawsuit-loving America.

If I was a doctor there's no way in hell I'd sign such a certification.